“Big bad Google” accused of shaping UK copyright policy

Members of parliament engaged in a spirited debate this week about whether the …

Suspicion of Google's outside influence on copyright policy isn't just limited to the US, where supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act have bashed the company for months and where critics have charged the Obama administration is too close to the giant advertising company.

In the UK, members of parliament this week debated the same issue. Pete Wishart, a Scottish MP from Perth and a member of the only "parliamentary rock band" MP4, took to the floor of the Commons on Tuesday to take on both digital rights groups and companies like Google.

Those who now have the Government’s ear are not particularly helpful. Some have become self-serving protectionists and are telling the Government their views. Self-appointed digital rights champions seem to rule the roost when informing Government opinion, and everything that the Government do is predicated on the support for and desire to please massive multi-billion dollar west-coast United States companies such as Google.

I do not know why Google has the Government’s ear, but I do not contend that it has a particular lobbying influence inside No. 10. I do not even suggest that Steve Hilton, the special policy adviser, has a special relationship with Google. I do not suggest such things or contend them today. For some reason, however, Google has the ear of the Government, and it was no surprise that, when Ian Hargreaves initiated his review [of copyright policy], many people called it the Google review.

Eric Joyce, MP for Falkirk, disagreed with this characterization of the whole debate.

There is a general trend in debates such as this to laud the importance of intellectual property, and, sometimes—as at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—to see the counter-argument as a matter of big bad Google lobbying No. 10 in a somehow illegitimate way. I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in saying that kind of stuff about special contacts inside Downing street....

It is a fact that the internet is a fantastic copying machine, and that is what happens. If we want to criminalise everyone who does it, we are on a hiding to nothing. We are criminalising everyone’s children to start with.

Kevin Brennan, MP for Cardiff West, agreed the criminalizing huge numbers of children was a problem, but he turned the focus back to Google.

Is not the issue that powerful business interests effectively direct those who are searching for something on the internet to illegal sites that do not just copy the odd thing, but are factories for ripping off people’s intellectual property rights; and that if companies such as Google were more responsible and had some corporate social responsibility they would not be directing people, effectively, to the illegal end of the market?...

I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google. Why does a Google search not direct people to a legal site where they could purchase the track?

Joyce wasn't about to agree that Google should in fact police the Internet. In his view, Google is simply showing the Internet as it is and should be allowed to do that. Attempts at strictly controlling the Internet are hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, he added.

The problem is that that is the way it is. In due course, industries will have to adapt to that way. The fact is that things will continue to be copied and industries with current business models will have to adjust. Of course, we have to do what we can within the realms of possibility to protect those industries but, inevitably, there will be a degree of evolution. Each time we have such a debate, the overwhelmingly dominant argument is for the protection of current business models, but people in those industries must know that things have to change.

Things will continue to be copied, and I would not advocate the degree of censorship of the internet that my hon. Friend seems to do.

But Brennan said he wasn't talking about site blocking or search engine removal; he just wants legal sites to come first.

I am simply saying that the corporate social responsibility of a large corporation would surely require it to ensure that its algorithms and systems generate a search that directs people to legal sites. Such corporations are perfectly capable of doing that, even if illegal searches appear way down in the list of pages. The fact that those sites are listed at the top—often in the paid advertising part of a Google search, so contributing to Google’s profitability—does not show corporate social responsibility.

Google has been controversial in the UK for several years, due to its perceived political power. When Prime Minister David Cameron announced a copyright review in 2010, he noted that "the founders of Google have said they could never have started their company in Britain... So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age. I want to encourage the sort of creative innovation that exists in America."

Last year, the tabloid Daily Mailasked, "Why is No.10 in thrall to this parasitic monster?"

"Google has become a global predator ruthlessly gobbling up potential rivals such as YouTube and 'stealing' the creative work of writers, film makers and the music industry," the paper warned.

And yet, despite the claims that the government listens only to Google and hippies when it comes to copyright, the government remains keen on more copyright enforcement. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put it a few minutes after the debate over Google, "We are closely considering whether to block access to websites that infringe copyright... An announcement is imminent, and I think that it will be welcomed."

Well, I've heard multiple times that "If X is passed then it would take down Google/YouTube." And?? Is the business model for company X or Y really supposed to be the primary driving factor for legislation? As much as I like Google, YouTube, etc. they make a lot of profits directly and indirectly from linking to and hosting illegally distributed copyrighted works. YouTube would be lame if they blocked all the music that was illegally backing people's videos and back when I was a naughty naughty pirate it was Google who always led me to MegaVideo or MegaUpload to download my warez.

"I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google."

There are some YouTube vids, wiki articles and some news reports.

That's probably what she was referring to, as that's all I get as well (from the US). If you can watch it on YouTube, it must be a pirated video, right? It's not like artists would put their own videos up for people to see them or anything...

"I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google."

There are some YouTube vids, wiki articles and some news reports.

That's probably what she was referring to, as that's all I get as well (from the US). If you can watch it on YouTube, it must be a pirated video, right? It's not like artists would put their own videos up for people to see them or anything...

So if one of the four videos is legit, then all four should be ok? I don't understand the point of your comment. I would dare say that at least 50% of the content on YouTube is illegal whether through art, music, or video assets that are being used without permission or citation of the rights owner.

Some of this is fallout from the illegal pharmaceutical scandal Google got itself into. Google has basically admitted they sometimes make money selling ads for illegal products. Now people are watching for that.

As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put it a few minutes after the debate over Google, "We are closely considering whether to block access to websites that infringe copyright... An announcement is imminent, and I think that it will be welcomed."

Vince Cable in favour of censoring the Internet? My my, have the Lib Dems abandoned their principles completely? No, don't answer that. (Although his statement could be read either way, the context seems to imply that indeed they are leaning to some form of censorship).

"I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google."

There are some YouTube vids, wiki articles and some news reports.

That's probably what she was referring to, as that's all I get as well (from the US). If you can watch it on YouTube, it must be a pirated video, right? It's not like artists would put their own videos up for people to see them or anything...

So if one of the four videos is legit, then all four should be ok? I don't understand the point of your comment. I would dare say that at least 50% of the content on YouTube is illegal whether through art, music, or video assets that are being used without permission or citation of the rights owner.

If "pirate sites" come up higher in search results it's because the engine thinks that's more relevant.

Ask the scumbag industries to invest in SEO and get their results higher, Google does not/should not have to bend their modern algorithms to help an outdated and destructive industry like the music industry.

"I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google."

I just did the same thing, from the UK, and none of the first page results has any links to free downloads after a quick scan. There are some YouTube vids, wiki articles and some news reports.

It must be either yours or the MP's search history changing the results. The 'filter bubble' gives different results to different people. Maybe the MP has a history of searching for pirated songs, so google is feeding them relevant results.

And Ars, please don't start relying on the Daily Mail for sources or sound bites. It's one of the most hate-filled tabloids out there and panders to the xenophobic crowd.

Turn off personalized search, then try again. If the results still have 5 sites offering illegal downloads of that song, i think its more indicative of how much music distribution sucks. Theres a reason people spend a considerable amount of time optimizing their sites for search engines.Also, does he not realize you can let google display ads to the right of search results?

"Last year, the tabloid Daily Mail asked, 'Why is No.10 in thrall to this parasitic monster?'"

No offense intended, however, quoting the Daily Mail doesn't really help any credible news story. You could have left that out and the article would have been perfect.Obligatory Daily Mail song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

If Google has so much influence with governments around the world, why do the content industries keep getting every longer copyrights, and ever harsher penalties for IP infringement? Why did New Zealand allow the U.S.A. to have one of it's residents arrested because some content owners didn't like his business model?

It's sounds like Orwellian double speak to me. Just keep shouting the opposite of the truth loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe you. It must be the evil Google that is influencing the government, not the beneficent RIAA and MPAA.

Google has no interest in keeping piracy going - Google has every interest in being able to run it's business without unreasonable demands from governments with no idea how the industry works. By all means, hire someone who knows what they're doing. But regular old MP's, TD's (Ireland where I live), Senators and Congressmen don't know enough about how this works to be governing it.

Well, I've heard multiple times that "If X is passed then it would take down Google/YouTube." And?? Is the business model for company X or Y really supposed to be the primary driving factor for legislation? As much as I like Google, YouTube, etc. they make a lot of profits directly and indirectly from linking to and hosting illegally distributed copyrighted works. YouTube would be lame if they blocked all the music that was illegally backing people's videos and back when I was a naughty naughty pirate it was Google who always led me to MegaVideo or MegaUpload to download my warez.

Even if it were true that the business model of Google/YouTube were the driving force in opposing SOPA/PIPA type legislation (which is not the case), how is that worse than the business model of major labels and movie studios being the driving force behind the legislation in the first place? Should the ones proposing new legislation be under a higher burden to demonstrate it is in the public interest than ones opposing that legislation?

Just keep shouting the opposite of the truth loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe you.

You make your own point very well!

I'm gonna take these out of order. I did read he had a shotgun in his safe room, I never heard he brandished it at any of the arresting officers. I have no idea how long the barrel was, but is that really relevant? The rule about barrel length is to make it harder to conceal, he obviously wasn't carrying it concealed in public, so who gives a rats ass about his having a shotgun. Do you really want to arrest everyone in the states who owns a shotgun?

Racketeering is a charge federal prosecutors like to use against organized criminal organizations, usually it involves things such as drug distribution, gambling, extortion, prostitution, hijacking and so on. Which of these activities was Megaupload guilty of? Oh that's right, none of them. They've thrown that charge in just to make it easier to seize all of his assets.

Who's money was he laundering? Generally people who need their money laundered are people who've earned it in ways that can't be reported as legal income. Did the genuine organized crime groups decide to turn to a half crazy internet geek to launder their mountains of cash? If so which ones? That's a pretty serious offense these days, if that's genuinely what they were after him for, then they didn't need all those other charges.

Lastly, as you put it "multiple fake personas,". I'm not even sure what this means. Did he have multiple on line user names or did he have multiple fake passports? Even if he did, it's pretty common knowledge that he as a few bricks shy of a load mentally. Do you really think the U.S. government would have went to the N.Z. government asking them to extradite someone because they had multiple passports?

Every one of these points is absolute bullshit. If the RIAA and the MPAA didn't want this guy shut down, not one of these other points you bring up would have ever been pursued by any government. All of these are attempts to make it look like arresting Kim Dotcom was the right thing to do, cause he was a serious bad guy. He may have been a paranoid lunatic, but there was no legitimate reason for the U.S. government to arrest a citizen of another country. I'm not even saying piracy is right, but if you think this was justified, I seriously hope you are never, ever in a position of power over people.

Just keep shouting the opposite of the truth loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe you.

You make your own point very well!

I'm gonna take these out of order. I did read he had a shotgun in his safe room, I never heard he brandished it at any of the arresting officers. I have no idea how long the barrel was, but is that really relevant? The rule about barrel length is to make it harder to conceal, he obviously wasn't carrying it concealed in public, so who gives a rats ass about his having a shotgun. Do you really want to arrest everyone in the states who owns a shotgun?

Racketeering is a charge federal prosecutors like to use against organized criminal organizations, usually it involves things such as drug distribution, gambling, extortion, prostitution, hijacking and so on. Which of these activities was Megaupload guilty of? Oh that's right, none of them. They've thrown that charge in just to make it easier to seize all of his assets.

Who's money was he laundering? Generally people who need their money laundered are people who've earned it in ways that can't be reported as legal income. Did the genuine organized crime groups decide to turn to a half crazy internet geek to launder their mountains of cash? If so which ones? That's a pretty serious offense these days, if that's genuinely what they were after him for, then they didn't need all those other charges.

Lastly, as you put it "multiple fake personas,". I'm not even sure what this means. Did he have multiple on line user names or did he have multiple fake passports? Even if he did, it's pretty common knowledge that he as a few bricks shy of a load mentally. Do you really think the U.S. government would have went to the N.Z. government asking them to extradite someone because they had multiple passports?

Every one of these points is absolute bullshit. If the RIAA and the MPAA didn't want this guy shut down, not one of these other points you bring up would have ever been pursued by any government. All of these are attempts to make it look like arresting Kim Dotcom was the right thing to do, cause he was a serious bad guy. He may have been a paranoid lunatic, but there was no legitimate reason for the U.S. government to arrest a citizen of another country. I'm not even saying piracy is right, but if you think this was justified, I seriously hope you are never, ever in a position of power over people.

Finally someone posts something reasonable.

I can't believe the amount of people that don't even attempt to think and just spout their mouth off. Even more alarming is the amount of people that buy every word the Government printed without question. People really still believe that they can trust their government, and that will end up poorly for everyone.

If "pirate sites" come up higher in search results it's because the engine thinks that's more relevant.

Ask the scumbag industries to invest in SEO and get their results higher, Google does not/should not have to bend their modern algorithms to help an outdated and destructive industry like the music industry.

I think this is a very valid point to make here, especially when government "seems" to think it has any form of right to control any part of the internet. Next we'll all be turning into China style states, all at the behest of businesses built on outdated models. Let Google be as they are, a very useful unbiased (most of the time) search engine giant, sure other areas of their business may come into question at times, but their search engine works well.

A small point on the "Empire State of Mind", logged out I get the same results as others (YouTube video links, wiki, lyrics and Telegraph link). However on the flip side on the "Searches related to Empire State of Mind" at the bottom of the page? Well one of them adds MP3, and that set of search results is a completely different story......

Sounds like Members of Parliament bending the truth to suit their own ends, makes you wonder who they get paid by, Google, RIAA or others. Perhaps they need to remember that the electorate dictates to them how they should perform in office, not the other way around.

If we want to talk about shaping other countries IP policies, then the top of the list belongs to the US Trade Representative. Now who do you think lobbies them the hardest? Hollywood perhaps? Wonder why we are extraditing a UK citizen for crimes he didn't commit in the US? Speaking of which, if the UK has such a problem with us, why are they letting their citizen get extradited?

I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google.

Lying to Parliament is taken quite seriously. Even if he's referring to the couple of unofficial YouTube clips that pop up, YouTube does not offer these for download, they're streamed only. Maybe this needs to be taken up with the Speaker of the House.

The whole aim of the "Digital Britain" legislation (that was rammed through parliament before the last election) changed after Business Secretary Peter Mendelson holidayed with media mogul David Geffen. But Google is the problem, along with those pesky rights groups. Groups consisting of actual constituents. The people Pete Wishart works for.

He's just pissed off that his favoured parasitic monster is being challenged.

Lying to parliament is rarely taken seriously, especially if it can be classed more as hyperbole (i.e. maybe not the top 5 links, and maybe not downloads, but at least one let me stream something so I'm half-right!).

Unless it becomes a big news story. Then someone might might make a statement to the house saying that "I regret that [event] occured" and blaming it on a junior researcher.

Considering the back-room deals with "big media" on the digital economy bill, I don't think that Google can be said to have undue influence.

Also, British newspapers hate google, because people use google news instead of spending a quid to find out which household item is causing cancer today and what miracle drug breakthrough will cure it tomorrow.

Kevin Brennan is correct in that you do get a list of dubious sites offering mp3 downloads, but only if you add 'mp3' to the search (for Empire State Of Mind), which is silly as that's exactly what the search engine should do (legality aside). You look for mp3s to download, you get mp3 download sites.

"I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google."

There are some YouTube vids, wiki articles and some news reports.

That's probably what she was referring to, as that's all I get as well (from the US). If you can watch it on YouTube, it must be a pirated video, right? It's not like artists would put their own videos up for people to see them or anything...

So if one of the four videos is legit, then all four should be ok? I don't understand the point of your comment. I would dare say that at least 50% of the content on YouTube is illegal whether through art, music, or video assets that are being used without permission or citation of the rights owner.

The rightsholder (almost never the creator) is welcome to submit a takedown request. Apparently you don't even have to be the rightsholder now to submit the takedown request, as per the "Mega Video."

As to the music that's up there, however, there's actually a significant amount of legitimate music videos, through things like Kontor and VEVO. Other times it's the creators themselves uploading it. And given their track record of using false, outdated, and misleading "statistics," it wouldn't surprise me if there were cases of the recording companies themselves uploading videos so they can claim it's worse than it is.

Well, I've heard multiple times that "If X is passed then it would take down Google/YouTube." And?? Is the business model for company X or Y really supposed to be the primary driving factor for legislation? As much as I like Google, YouTube, etc. they make a lot of profits directly and indirectly from linking to and hosting illegally distributed copyrighted works. YouTube would be lame if they blocked all the music that was illegally backing people's videos and back when I was a naughty naughty pirate it was Google who always led me to MegaVideo or MegaUpload to download my warez.

Potentially taking down Google/Youtube is often a sign that a law is off-the-wall crazy and greatly in conflict with the fundamental nature of the internet today. Generally speaking, it's not Google or Youtube in particular that are the concerns, since they have the money and power to get around not having due process, but rather, a theoretical future innovator similar to them that would be blocked by whatever repressive law that is being considered to theoretically prop up a certain industry or address a certain irrational fear, even if it will have no real efficacy.

Lying to parliament is rarely taken seriously, especially if it can be classed more as hyperbole (i.e. maybe not the top 5 links, and maybe not downloads, but at least one let me stream something so I'm half-right!).

Unless it becomes a big news story. Then someone might might make a statement to the house saying that "I regret that [event] occured" and blaming it on a junior researcher.

Considering the back-room deals with "big media" on the digital economy bill, I don't think that Google can be said to have undue influence.

Also, British newspapers hate google, because people use google news instead of spending a quid to find out which household item is causing cancer today and what miracle drug breakthrough will cure it tomorrow.

And find better naked girls than page three, or what 'celebrity' is sleeping with who, or going into rehab.